Dismissed¶40

Sri Jayanna v. the Head Master

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/31228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's mandamus plea for consideration of representation seeking termination of government school teacher's services dismissed; victim/complainant lacks standing to seek termination via representation; service termination not a recognised punishment for offences under trial; allegations to be tested in Special CC No.131/2022 (FIR Crime No.287/2022, Kuduru Police) and Crime No.427/2021; disciplinary action left to education authorities; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Ramanagara/Magadi Taluk; Karnataka High Court; Suraj Govindaraj J.; NC: 2026:KHC:29433.

What did the court decide?

The truth of the petitioner's allegations against respondent no.5 falls to be decided in Special CC No.131/2022 and Crime No.427/2021, not in this writ proceeding. ¶36

Sri Jayanna Vs the Head Master — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05/08/2025 (Annexure-D) seeking termination of respondent no.5's services as a school teacher, given the criminal proceedings alleged against respondent no.5.

¶24

Court's answer

The truth of the petitioner's allegations against respondent no.5 falls to be decided in Special CC No.131/2022 and Crime No.427/2021, not in this writ proceeding.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Termination of respondent no.5's services is not a punishment recognised in respect of the crimes alleged in the pending proceedings, so the petitioner's demand for termination cannot be acceded to.

¶36

Key takeaways

The petitioner, being a complainant in the criminal proceedings, cannot maintain a separate representation for termination of services, and respondent no.5's services cannot be terminated at his behest.ratio¶40
It remains open to the official respondents to take any disciplinary action against respondent no.5 as may be permissible in law.obiter¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Suraj Govindaraj J.), by oral order dated 16.06.2026, dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner, a complainant against respondent no.5 (a teacher at Srirampura Colony Government School, Magadi Taluk), sought mandamus for consideration of his representation dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure-D) demanding termination of respondent no.5's services. The Court held that the allegations underlying Crime No.287/2022 / Special CC No.131/2022 (Kuduru Police) and Crime No.427/2021 must be decided in those criminal proceedings themselves; that termination of service is not a punishment recognised in respect of the crimes alleged; that a complainant cannot maintain a separate representation for termination nor secure termination at his behest; and that it remains open to the official respondents to take any disciplinary action permissible in law. Finding no ground made out, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29433 WP No. 31228 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 31228 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI JAYANNA S/O LATE GURUMURTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MARIKUPPE POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE HEAD MASTER GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, SRIRAMPURA COLONY, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 127

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER B.E.O. OFFICE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120

¶17

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29433 WP No. 31228 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI RENUKARADHYA P. S/O LATE PUTTADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT: KODIHALLI VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI K.V. NARASHIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/08/2025 AT ANNEXURE-D IMMEDIATELY AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

a) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 05.08.2025 at ANNEXURE-D immediately.

¶29

b) PASS any appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court the deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶30

The petitioner alleges that respondent no.5, who is a teacher in Srirampura Colony Government School, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, is involved in heinous criminal activities. He had attacked the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:29433 WP No. 31228 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioner and others on 14.06.2022, insulted them and their caste, on which basis, a first information report in Crime No.287/2022 was registered by the Kuduru Police and now pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Special CC No.131/2022.

¶35

It is further alleged that respondent no.5 is also involved in the murder of the petitioner's son and it is in that background that Crime No.427/2021 has been registered. It is alleging that respondent no.5 who is involved in the aforesaid crimes cannot continue as a school teacher in a government school and in that regard, a representation had been submitted by the petitioner on 05.08.2025 to terminate the services of respondent no.5. The said representation not being considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶36

The allegations made by the petitioner, whether true or not, would have to be decided in Special CC No.131/2022 and Crime No.427/2021. The demand made by the petitioner for termination of the services of respondent no.5 is not a punishment recognized in respect of the crimes alleged in the aforesaid proceedings. The petitioner who is a complainant in

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:29433 WP No. 31228 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

those proceedings cannot maintain a separate representation for termination of services. At the behest of the petitioner; the services of respondent no.5 cannot be terminated. It is however open for the official respondents to take any disciplinary action as may be permissible in law. No ground being made out, the Writ Petition stands dismissed .

¶41

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶42

PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Sri Jayanna v. the Head Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayanna v. the Head Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivakumar C L Vs the State Information Commissioner

Smt. Mehar Taj Vs Babu N

Sri Nimishamba Enterprises Vs the Managing Director

Sri S Venkataramana Mayya Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Sayed Afreedi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa Vs the State of Karnataka